Why Disagreement Is a Very Bad Approach to Any Conversation

Guest articles >
Why Disagreement Is a Very Bad Approach to Any Conversation

by: Ted Santos

In our society, we are taught to have an opinion and speak our minds. What we
are not taught to do is listen. We are so focused on our opinion that we often
fail to hear what is being communicated to us.

Sure. We are taught to pay attention to what someone says to us, whether in a
public forum or in our most intimate relationships. However, do we really
consider what we are listening for?

If you notice, when we like someone, it occurs mostly because we find
ourselves agreeing with much of what they say. On the other hand, we find
ourselves disagreeing with those we claim to dislike.

If we peel back the layers of this paradigm, we find we rarely listen to
anyone. We are listening for something. We listen for the things we like and
agree with. Conversely, we listen for the things we don’t like and disagree
with. We even express agreement and/or disagreement for the things we agree
with, if the person does not express those things in a manner that is familiar
to us. And if we don’t fully understand what they say, we ignore it or say it
doesn’t make sense. Or change that which we do not understand into something
that makes sense to us. Therefore, we are almost never actually listening to
what the speaker is saying to us. We are listening for our own interests. In
other words, we are listening for the speaker to validate our very existence or
identity. If someone says something that appears to invalidate our identity, we
attack or ignore it. In that paradigm, there is almost never an occasion for
discourse. We are continuously engaged in a debate. Debates are about being
right and making the other wrong.

Discourse, on the other hand, allows the conversation to create something
new. Discourse is analogous to the making of water. Water is H2O. It is a
contribution between hydrogen and oxygen. By themselves, they are valuable.
Together they make something they could have never made on their own. And they
are not equal when it comes to making water. Yet, they cooperate and contribute
to one another.

Furthermore, it would seem that the only way someone could disagree is
because they know everything. If you know everything, you are in a position to
determine if something is true or false. If you don’t know everything and
believe it is your place to disagree with another, you may be displaying
arrogance, because each person has limited knowledge. How can you believe that
what you know is sufficient enough to understand the many things you don’t know
or the things you don’t know you don’t know?

For example, in the 1920s, Robert Goddard said ‘one day man will fly to the
moon.’ The NY Times not only disagreed, they wrote a lengthy article to insult
Goddard’s intelligence. In 1969, the NY Times wrote another article of apology
to him, even though he was dead.

Before you disagree with this article, I suggest you take the following
steps. In your next conversation, explore a new paradigm. Engage in discourse
instead of a debate. If you really want to demonstrate you are listening, repeat
what the person said to you. They will either say ‘yes, I said that’, ‘no, that
is not what I said’ or ‘yes, that is what I said, but that is not what I meant.’
That simple step can make the other person feel as though you value every word
they are saying. It also forces you to really pay attention. In addition, ask
questions when you don’t understand. More importantly, have an open mind. That
way you have the possibility to make water. Through an engaging discourse, you
and the speaker can create something that one of you could have never made on
your own.